patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,431 comments by 15,051 users - Tenpoundbass online now
There will be no "Blue Wave", change my mind!
invite response
2018 May 14, 8:51am 79,861 views 699 comments
« First « Previous Comments 207 - 246 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
207
curious2
2018 Aug 19, 6:16pm
curious2
2018 Aug 19, 6:16pm
LeonDurham says
It is discussed, including on PatNet, so that is another lie from you. As candidate Trump said, Islam hates us. It is a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, and hides behind the beard of a religion.
LeonDurham says
When you attempt to visit Medina, please ask KSA why they don't take in the allegedly persecuted Muslim refugees. If you recall, KSA's "contribution" was to offer "charitably" to build Wahabi mosques for them, in NATO countries. Meanwhile, Hillary's War on behalf of her Saudi and corporate clients was the very force driving many of those Muslims into those Muslim countries, thus spreading Islam, which she campaigned on escalating.
that is never discussed.
It is discussed, including on PatNet, so that is another lie from you. As candidate Trump said, Islam hates us. It is a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, and hides behind the beard of a religion.
LeonDurham says
refugees
When you attempt to visit Medina, please ask KSA why they don't take in the allegedly persecuted Muslim refugees. If you recall, KSA's "contribution" was to offer "charitably" to build Wahabi mosques for them, in NATO countries. Meanwhile, Hillary's War on behalf of her Saudi and corporate clients was the very force driving many of those Muslims into those Muslim countries, thus spreading Islam, which she campaigned on escalating.
208
LeonDurham
2018 Aug 19, 6:20pm
curious2 says
No, it's no lie. There are already Muslims in the US so adding more is not spreading anything.
curious2 says
Not sure what you are even trying to say here. I'm not pro-Muslim. I'm pro--US staying true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.
BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.
No, it's no lie. There are already Muslims in the US so adding more is not spreading anything.
curious2 says
BTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.
Not sure what you are even trying to say here. I'm not pro-Muslim. I'm pro--US staying true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.
210
FortWayne
2018 Aug 19, 9:48pm
FortWayne
2018 Aug 19, 9:48pm
Leon do you understand a difference between some Muslims and too many? Few are a minority which has to immerse. Too many and they change the country.
LeonDurham says
LeonDurham says
curious2 saysBTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.
No, it's no lie. There are already Muslims in the US so adding more is not spreading anything.
curious2 saysBTW, today, Medina (FKA Yathrib) is off limits to non-Muslims. Why don't you demand a right to immigrate to KSA, or at least visit Medina? You might learn something about your lies.
Not sure what you are even trying to say here. I'm not pro-Muslim. I'm pro--US staying true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.
211
Rin
2018 Aug 19, 10:18pm
Rin
2018 Aug 19, 10:18pm
LeonDurham says
Did you flunk out of law school or something?
Here's the Establishment Clause ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
Excerpt: "The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. "
In other words, society needs to realize that Islam is in fact, a religion, derived from ancient Arabia, today, known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unless some anthropologist can prove this wrong, it stands as a fact.
And since the 1965 Immigration Act, the US govt stopped discriminating against race & skin color during immigration procedures, unlike before. So in order to protect the Cambodian & Vietnamese Buddhists, the Indian & Nepalese Hindus, along with the South American Catholics, the US needs to vet out migration from nation-states, known to harbor Islamists, a.k.a Muslim majority nations.
Is this so difficult to figure out?
See my previous post--declare that Islam is not a recognized religion due to its violent nature.
Did you flunk out of law school or something?
Here's the Establishment Clause ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
Excerpt: "The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. "
In other words, society needs to realize that Islam is in fact, a religion, derived from ancient Arabia, today, known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unless some anthropologist can prove this wrong, it stands as a fact.
And since the 1965 Immigration Act, the US govt stopped discriminating against race & skin color during immigration procedures, unlike before. So in order to protect the Cambodian & Vietnamese Buddhists, the Indian & Nepalese Hindus, along with the South American Catholics, the US needs to vet out migration from nation-states, known to harbor Islamists, a.k.a Muslim majority nations.
Is this so difficult to figure out?
212
curious2
2018 Aug 19, 10:23pm
curious2
2018 Aug 19, 10:23pm
Rin says
...does not really apply in the context of non-resident aliens outside the USA. Nothing in the establishment clause gives foreign Muslims a right to immigrate or even visit, much less a right to subsidies as "refugees." Islam commands believers to go to Mecca, in KSA; a travel ban against entering the USA does not prohibit that.
The place for Muslim migrants to go would be KSA, since they are commanded to go there anyway. KSA, being already Islamic, doesn't need more Muslims, so KSA uses Clinton & Merkel to send them into NATO instead.
Establishment Clause
...does not really apply in the context of non-resident aliens outside the USA. Nothing in the establishment clause gives foreign Muslims a right to immigrate or even visit, much less a right to subsidies as "refugees." Islam commands believers to go to Mecca, in KSA; a travel ban against entering the USA does not prohibit that.
The place for Muslim migrants to go would be KSA, since they are commanded to go there anyway. KSA, being already Islamic, doesn't need more Muslims, so KSA uses Clinton & Merkel to send them into NATO instead.
213
Rin
2018 Aug 19, 10:29pm
Rin
2018 Aug 19, 10:29pm
curious2 says
My point was that LeonDurham wanted the US govt to officially declare that "Islam not a recognized religion" when in fact, the US govt does not have that authority. Plus, zero anthropologists would even attempt such a trite argument.
Instead, the only hope the US has is to prevent entrants from Muslim majority nation-states into the US which does a couple of things, one, minimize the Orlando Shooter repeaters, and two, allow the entrance of Chileans, Vietnamese, & Koreans, since it's not about race/color but instead, a propensity for exporting violent ideologies like Islam.
...does not really apply in the context of non-resident aliens. Nothing in the establishment clause gives foreign Muslims a right to immigrate or even visit, much less a right to subsidies as "refugees." A travel ban does not prevent foreign Muslims from exercising their religion, which BTW commands them to go to Mecca, which is in KSA.
My point was that LeonDurham wanted the US govt to officially declare that "Islam not a recognized religion" when in fact, the US govt does not have that authority. Plus, zero anthropologists would even attempt such a trite argument.
Instead, the only hope the US has is to prevent entrants from Muslim majority nation-states into the US which does a couple of things, one, minimize the Orlando Shooter repeaters, and two, allow the entrance of Chileans, Vietnamese, & Koreans, since it's not about race/color but instead, a propensity for exporting violent ideologies like Islam.
214
curious2
2018 Aug 19, 10:35pm
curious2
2018 Aug 19, 10:35pm
Rin says
That's the key, IMO. US law has long excluded advocates of a totalitarian doctrine, and people who advocate the violent overthrow of our government. Islam fits both categories. Whether it's a religion is irrelevant. A Muslim does not have a right to cut off your head, even though his religion commands him to do it. The USA has every right to stop totalitarians and advocates of violence at the border, even a duty to do so, regardless of whether the foreigners' motives are religious or secular.
Even domestically, governments can prohibit murder, even though that prohibits part of Islam. The establishment clause does not preclude laws of general application. It would be interesting to see Muslims argue that the law against murder prohibits them from exercising their religion, e.g. honor killings. They would probably get support from some on PatNet.
violent ideologies like Islam.
That's the key, IMO. US law has long excluded advocates of a totalitarian doctrine, and people who advocate the violent overthrow of our government. Islam fits both categories. Whether it's a religion is irrelevant. A Muslim does not have a right to cut off your head, even though his religion commands him to do it. The USA has every right to stop totalitarians and advocates of violence at the border, even a duty to do so, regardless of whether the foreigners' motives are religious or secular.
Even domestically, governments can prohibit murder, even though that prohibits part of Islam. The establishment clause does not preclude laws of general application. It would be interesting to see Muslims argue that the law against murder prohibits them from exercising their religion, e.g. honor killings. They would probably get support from some on PatNet.
215
Rin
2018 Aug 19, 10:52pm
Rin
2018 Aug 19, 10:52pm
curious2 says
And that's fine because domestically ... murder, extortion, & kidnapping are already on the books so in effect, it's a matter of local & federal agencies doing their job and not kowtowing to some idiot Imam cult leaders, who feel that they can advocate mass violence at their mosques w/o being picked up by the police. Realize, the same goes for PatNet, if someone here tells anyone to knock someone off, that person can be charged for a crime.
curious2 says
Yes, which is why Leon's argument that this was racism was a Straw Man. So far, I'm yet to hear of Cambodian Buddhists immigrating to the US to blow up buses and shopping centers.
Even domestically, governments can prohibit murder, even though that prohibits part of Islam. The establishment clause does not preclude laws of general application. It would be interesting to see Muslims argue that the law against murder prohibits them from exercising their religion, e.g. honor killings.
And that's fine because domestically ... murder, extortion, & kidnapping are already on the books so in effect, it's a matter of local & federal agencies doing their job and not kowtowing to some idiot Imam cult leaders, who feel that they can advocate mass violence at their mosques w/o being picked up by the police. Realize, the same goes for PatNet, if someone here tells anyone to knock someone off, that person can be charged for a crime.
curious2 says
The USA has every right to stop totalitarians and advocates of violence at the border, even a duty to do so, regardless of whether the foreigners' motives are religious or secular.
Yes, which is why Leon's argument that this was racism was a Straw Man. So far, I'm yet to hear of Cambodian Buddhists immigrating to the US to blow up buses and shopping centers.
216
LeonDurham
2018 Aug 20, 6:42am
curious2 says
OK--point me to a discussion of declaring that Islam a=is not a religion. Perhaps I missed it.
It is discussed, including on PatNet, so that is another lie from you. As candidate Trump said, Islam hates us. It is a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government, and hides behind the beard of a religion.
OK--point me to a discussion of declaring that Islam a=is not a religion. Perhaps I missed it.
217
LeonDurham
2018 Aug 20, 6:45am
Rin says
lol. I referenced the Establishment Clause earlier in my posts so obviously not. Perhaps you need a primer on reading comprehension.
Rin says
No, your "in other words" is not at all a summation of the prior clause. If one declares that Islam is NOT a religion, clearly one is not preferring one religion over another. That should be obvious. That is the entire purpose behind declaring that it's not a religion.
Did you flunk out of law school or something?
lol. I referenced the Establishment Clause earlier in my posts so obviously not. Perhaps you need a primer on reading comprehension.
Rin says
Excerpt: "The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. "
In other words, society needs to realize that Islam is in fact, a religion, derived from ancient Arabia, today, known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unless some anthropologist can prove this wrong, it stands as a fact.
No, your "in other words" is not at all a summation of the prior clause. If one declares that Islam is NOT a religion, clearly one is not preferring one religion over another. That should be obvious. That is the entire purpose behind declaring that it's not a religion.
218
LeonDurham
2018 Aug 20, 6:47am
Rin says
OK-that may be true, but what is the law that defines the requirements for an established religion that the US must recognize?
My point was that LeonDurham wanted the US govt to officially declare that "Islam not a recognized religion" when in fact, the US govt does not have that authority.
OK-that may be true, but what is the law that defines the requirements for an established religion that the US must recognize?
219
LeonDurham
2018 Aug 20, 6:49am
Rin says
And that's why I would NEVER and did NEVER make such an argument. Please do not put words in my mouth (or post in this case).
#1--we're talking about religion, not race. Why in the world you would think I ever said anything about racism is beyond me.
#2--I've simply commented on the law
Yes, which is why Leon's argument that this was racism was a Straw Man. So far, I'm yet to hear of Cambodian Buddhists immigrating to the US to blow up buses and shopping centers.
And that's why I would NEVER and did NEVER make such an argument. Please do not put words in my mouth (or post in this case).
#1--we're talking about religion, not race. Why in the world you would think I ever said anything about racism is beyond me.
#2--I've simply commented on the law
220
Rin
2018 Aug 20, 9:25am
Rin
2018 Aug 20, 9:25am
LeonDurham says
So an expert panel (pick any of the universities a/o think tanks of the globe) of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists are going to say that 'Islam is NOT a religion of the ppls of Arabia'? So who was the First Caliphate, Abu Bakr, aside from being a believer in the visions of the prophet Mohamed? If that's not a religion, which really is little more than an oversized cult, then what is?
Wasn't that essentially Paul of Tarsas's role, when he spread the stories of Jesus throughout the ethnic Greek majority Anatolia and the rest of the Roman Empire? And at least the first Caliphate knew Mohamed in person whereas Paul only saw Jesus in a vision, while he was having a nervous breakdown near Damascus.
This is basically the Ignatius Loyola technique of the middle ages ...
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola
Iggy said: "what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus."
Sorry, that doesn't fly in the modern world. That's called denial.
Today, the definition is clear ... Islam is a religion but a religion of cultural [ see Arabic culture ] expansion & violence. Hence, not being Arabians, we (meaning the west) do not want their values and customs in our society.
So yes, the US govt can restrict immigration from Islamic majority countries, and domestically, toss Imams in jail for advocating violence on the local populations.
That is the entire purpose behind declaring that it's not a religion.
So an expert panel (pick any of the universities a/o think tanks of the globe) of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists are going to say that 'Islam is NOT a religion of the ppls of Arabia'? So who was the First Caliphate, Abu Bakr, aside from being a believer in the visions of the prophet Mohamed? If that's not a religion, which really is little more than an oversized cult, then what is?
Wasn't that essentially Paul of Tarsas's role, when he spread the stories of Jesus throughout the ethnic Greek majority Anatolia and the rest of the Roman Empire? And at least the first Caliphate knew Mohamed in person whereas Paul only saw Jesus in a vision, while he was having a nervous breakdown near Damascus.
This is basically the Ignatius Loyola technique of the middle ages ...
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola
Iggy said: "what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus."
Sorry, that doesn't fly in the modern world. That's called denial.
Today, the definition is clear ... Islam is a religion but a religion of cultural [ see Arabic culture ] expansion & violence. Hence, not being Arabians, we (meaning the west) do not want their values and customs in our society.
So yes, the US govt can restrict immigration from Islamic majority countries, and domestically, toss Imams in jail for advocating violence on the local populations.
221
LeonDurham
2018 Aug 20, 9:49am
Rin says
I agree with this. Unfortunately, Trump opened his big mouth and declared that he was going to ban Musliims, not ban people from certain countries. Therefore, even when the directive was written to ban people from certain countries, courts have ruled that his intention is clearly to ban Muslims, which they find to be unconstitutional.
Rin says
Is that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts? I've not seen anything that sets a legal standard, so that's an honest question.
So yes, the US govt can restrict immigration from Islamic majority countries, and domestically, toss Imams in jail for advocating violence on the local populations.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, Trump opened his big mouth and declared that he was going to ban Musliims, not ban people from certain countries. Therefore, even when the directive was written to ban people from certain countries, courts have ruled that his intention is clearly to ban Muslims, which they find to be unconstitutional.
Rin says
So an expert panel (pick any of the universities a/o think tanks of the globe) of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists are going to say that 'Islam is NOT a religion of the ppls of Arabia'? So who was the First Caliphate, Abu Bakr, aside from being a believer in the visions of the prophet Mohamed? If that's not a religion, which really is little more than an oversized cult, then what is?
Is that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts? I've not seen anything that sets a legal standard, so that's an honest question.
222
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Aug 20, 10:09am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Aug 20, 10:09am
Travel Ban Upheld by highest Court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban.html
223
rdm
2018 Aug 20, 10:17am
LeonDurham says
The IRS and the courts seem to determine what is a "legitimate" religion. The IRS determines tax exempt status (my opinion is this should be revoked for all religions) I would guess they have written criteria for this, but don't know. I remember years ago the Native American religion that used peyote as part of its, in my opinion, legit religious ceremony lost in court when trying to get a waiver from the law outlawing peyote's use and possession. I think there has subsequently been some accommodation. Clearly the law as it is interpreted favors established so called mainstream religions. Islam falls into that category whether you like it or not. Some countries such as Russia have "officially" recognized religions and they do not recognize others, they banned Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. I don't believe U.S. can do this due to the establishment clause.
Is that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts?
The IRS and the courts seem to determine what is a "legitimate" religion. The IRS determines tax exempt status (my opinion is this should be revoked for all religions) I would guess they have written criteria for this, but don't know. I remember years ago the Native American religion that used peyote as part of its, in my opinion, legit religious ceremony lost in court when trying to get a waiver from the law outlawing peyote's use and possession. I think there has subsequently been some accommodation. Clearly the law as it is interpreted favors established so called mainstream religions. Islam falls into that category whether you like it or not. Some countries such as Russia have "officially" recognized religions and they do not recognize others, they banned Jehovah's Witness a few years ago. I don't believe U.S. can do this due to the establishment clause.
224
Misc
2018 Aug 20, 10:28am
I think that the republicans will lose a few seats in the House, but will not lose the majority. They should probably keep the majority in the Senate, as well. The economy has improved so much under Trump that people will vote their pocket books. The job gains under Obama were all part time jobs. There have been millions of full time jobs created under Trump and many part time jobs converted to full time (these are not fully reflected in the job numbers). It is not just a continuation of a trend, the full time jobs now being created mean a much better economy.
225
Rin
2018 Aug 20, 10:46am
Rin
2018 Aug 20, 10:46am
rdm says
Which loops back to the main point, what is our judiciary system?... aside from being a panel of legally trained experts, albeit, over represented by places like Harvard or Yale Law Schools.
And yes, these judges will defer to the expert opinions of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists as to whether or not Islam is a religion or not. And since most would concur that it was a religion, then that pathway won't work.
Let's just hope that they reach out from beyond Harvard and Yale. That's too much Ivy league incest.
LeonDurham saysIs that the standard for legally recognizing a religion? A panel of experts?
The IRS and the courts seem to determine what is a "legitimate" religion.
Which loops back to the main point, what is our judiciary system?... aside from being a panel of legally trained experts, albeit, over represented by places like Harvard or Yale Law Schools.
And yes, these judges will defer to the expert opinions of anthropologists, historians, and political scientists as to whether or not Islam is a religion or not. And since most would concur that it was a religion, then that pathway won't work.
Let's just hope that they reach out from beyond Harvard and Yale. That's too much Ivy league incest.
227
LeonDurham
2018 Sep 23, 5:13pm
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gop-poised-midterm-wipeout-apos-130000367.html
Politics
GOP poised for midterm wipeout as 'blue wave' scenario gives Democrats a 12-point lead: NBC-WSJ poll
John Harwood,CNBC 11 hours ago
"The new NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey, taken six weeks before Americans head to the polls, shows Democrats leading Republicans by 52 percent to 40 percent for control of Congress.
If it holds, that 12 percentage point margin would suggest a "blue wave" large enough to switch control of not just the House but also the Senate."
Politics
GOP poised for midterm wipeout as 'blue wave' scenario gives Democrats a 12-point lead: NBC-WSJ poll
John Harwood,CNBC 11 hours ago
"The new NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey, taken six weeks before Americans head to the polls, shows Democrats leading Republicans by 52 percent to 40 percent for control of Congress.
If it holds, that 12 percentage point margin would suggest a "blue wave" large enough to switch control of not just the House but also the Senate."
229
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 3:56pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 3:56pm
Republican Party Favorability highest in 7 years:
Republican favorability at 45%, Democrats at 44%
Democrats generally have had the upper hand in favorability ratings
Major gains for Republican Party within the party, including leaners
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September's 36%. It is the party's most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/242906/republican-party-favorability-highest-seven-years.aspx
Republican favorability at 45%, Democrats at 44%
Democrats generally have had the upper hand in favorability ratings
Major gains for Republican Party within the party, including leaners
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September's 36%. It is the party's most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/242906/republican-party-favorability-highest-seven-years.aspx
230
Shaman
2018 Sep 24, 4:13pm
Shaman
2018 Sep 24, 4:13pm
This thread will be fun to visit in Six weeks. I’m glad I got the first comment. On record in May for RED WAVE!
231
lostand confused
2018 Sep 24, 5:08pm
lostand confused
2018 Sep 24, 5:08pm
I am predicting repubs will hold the house in smaller numbers and increase senate. Lets see. Me thinks dems overplayed their hand with kavanaugh -next will be Hilalry ina dominatrix suite claiming Kavanugh stiffed her fee.
232
HeadSet
2018 Sep 24, 8:06pm
HeadSet
2018 Sep 24, 8:06pm
One race here in Va you may find interesting. The Virginia 2nd District seat would normally be a shoe-in for the ex Navy SEAL incumbent, but his campaign staff did a little fraud helping a primaried out Democrat collect signatures so she could run as an Independent. That would split the Democrat votes and help the incumbent win. If the incumbent loses, (not sure what the odds are) it will be as a reaction to this fraud. A court case threw out the collected signatures, so the Independent is not on the ballot.
233
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Oct 4, 10:49am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Oct 4, 10:49am
Now I'm positive there won't be a blue wave.
The Democrats shot themselves in the foot REALLY badly. Their only hope to stop Kavanaugh's appointment, but at this point I don't think it matters.
Imagine, the Media no longer controls the narrative.
"Hit the Identity/Rape/Toxic White Male button again!"
"I can't"
"Why not?"
"It's jammed to the on position!"
Last week, I sued @realDonaldTrump & @senatemajldr to stop the unconstitutional Kavanaugh confirmation process. Today I filed a motion for a restraining order against Trump and McConnell to force immediate disclosure of the Kavanaugh record they’ve been working so hard to hide.
— Jeff Merkley (@JeffMerkley) October 3, 2018
The Democrats shot themselves in the foot REALLY badly. Their only hope to stop Kavanaugh's appointment, but at this point I don't think it matters.
Imagine, the Media no longer controls the narrative.
"Hit the Identity/Rape/Toxic White Male button again!"
"I can't"
"Why not?"
"It's jammed to the on position!"
235
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Oct 4, 11:07am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Oct 4, 11:07am
Holy crap, look at Cramer vs. Heitkamp. A nobody is beating the crap out of a well-known Senator, RCP average is 8.7 pts - some have him leading by double digits!
236
Shaman
2018 Oct 4, 11:10am
Shaman
2018 Oct 4, 11:10am
New prediction, more specific this time. The GOP will pick up 8-10 seats in the Senate and 15 in the House. This will establish a supermajority in Congress while several GOPe congressmen were either primaried out or retired, and all the new GOP congressmen will be Pro-MAGA!
Trump will have a mandate.
Leftist tears enough to fill Lake Michigan!
Glorious!
Trump will have a mandate.
Leftist tears enough to fill Lake Michigan!
Glorious!
238
WookieMan
2018 Oct 4, 12:29pm
WookieMan
2018 Oct 4, 12:29pm
Quigley says
Careful. Lake Michigan is the fullest I've seen it on the Chicago shoreline in my lifetime. Just drove by on Sunday to the last regular season cubs game. Shit, she was bulging. Wisconsin has gotten tons of rain this summer, which of course all goes out over the lake. No tears please, it's full.
Leftist tears enough to fill Lake Michigan!
Careful. Lake Michigan is the fullest I've seen it on the Chicago shoreline in my lifetime. Just drove by on Sunday to the last regular season cubs game. Shit, she was bulging. Wisconsin has gotten tons of rain this summer, which of course all goes out over the lake. No tears please, it's full.
239
Evan F.
2018 Oct 4, 12:36pm
Quigley says
Not sure where you're drawing those conclusions from. Odds are good that the Repubs will pick up a couple seats in the Senate, but the House? Not quite.
The GOP will pick up 8-10 seats in the Senate and 15 in the House.
Not sure where you're drawing those conclusions from. Odds are good that the Repubs will pick up a couple seats in the Senate, but the House? Not quite.
240
Shaman
2018 Oct 4, 12:52pm
Shaman
2018 Oct 4, 12:52pm
The anger about the Kavanagh Kangaroo Kourt is real and will drive extra beatings than were already in store for the Democrats. Remember I predicted a red wave in May.
That red wave just got ten feet higher!
The Democrats just marginalized their party for a generation.
That red wave just got ten feet higher!
The Democrats just marginalized their party for a generation.
241
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Oct 4, 1:11pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Oct 4, 1:11pm
Official: Heitkamp is out of the Race for ND Senate. Vows to vote "No" on Kavanaugh.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1047914985341558785
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1047914985341558785
242
Evan F.
2018 Oct 4, 1:22pm
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Heitkamp has been trailing Cramer since like May. The Kavanaugh hearings may have moved the needle infinitesimally but she's been in an uphill battle for at least 2 months before Kavanaugh was even announced.
In all likelihood she knows she's toast and is just voting her conscience.
Official: Heitkamp is out of the Race for ND Senate. Vows to vote "No" on Kavanaugh.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1047914985341558785
Heitkamp has been trailing Cramer since like May. The Kavanaugh hearings may have moved the needle infinitesimally but she's been in an uphill battle for at least 2 months before Kavanaugh was even announced.
In all likelihood she knows she's toast and is just voting her conscience.
243
Goran_K
2018 Oct 4, 1:31pm
Goran_K
2018 Oct 4, 1:31pm
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Just like that, ND got a GOP senator in November.
Official: Heitkamp is out of the Race for ND Senate. Vows to vote "No" on Kavanaugh.
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1047914985341558785
Just like that, ND got a GOP senator in November.
244
curious2
2018 Oct 4, 4:31pm
curious2
2018 Oct 4, 4:31pm
Democrats' 2018 "Better Deal" leaves a lot of room for improvement. It seems mainly about adding government programs.
For example, to address absurdly high medical costs, "Prescription drugs that meet a test for an unconscionable price increase will be subject to new investigative and enforcement action by a new “price gouging” enforcer." Nevermind the already absurdly high baseline, and the routine increases: only an "unconscionable" increase will trigger review. And forget about market competition. Repealing the Rx requirement and import restrictions, so that people can shop around and buy what they want from wherever they want, would reduce costs dramatically and quickly, but that is not part of the deal.
I don't see huge numbers of people rallying around creating new government departments. The game plan seems to be primarily TDS, opposing the President and all of his works. That didn't work in 2016, so it seems unlikely to do better in 2018 when he isn't even on the ballot.
I would love to be proven wrong about this, because I do think divided government produces better judicial appointments, and for that reason I would like to see Democrats regain the Senate. I just don't see it happening with the current "deal".
For example, to address absurdly high medical costs, "Prescription drugs that meet a test for an unconscionable price increase will be subject to new investigative and enforcement action by a new “price gouging” enforcer." Nevermind the already absurdly high baseline, and the routine increases: only an "unconscionable" increase will trigger review. And forget about market competition. Repealing the Rx requirement and import restrictions, so that people can shop around and buy what they want from wherever they want, would reduce costs dramatically and quickly, but that is not part of the deal.
I don't see huge numbers of people rallying around creating new government departments. The game plan seems to be primarily TDS, opposing the President and all of his works. That didn't work in 2016, so it seems unlikely to do better in 2018 when he isn't even on the ballot.
I would love to be proven wrong about this, because I do think divided government produces better judicial appointments, and for that reason I would like to see Democrats regain the Senate. I just don't see it happening with the current "deal".
245
Goran_K
2018 Oct 4, 5:00pm
Goran_K
2018 Oct 4, 5:00pm
MockingbirdKiller says
True. Red State Democrats should really learn a lesson from Manchin (who will probably end up switching parties anyway).
She was screwed no matter how she voted. Vote 'yes' and lose her base. Lose her base, guaranteed to lose the election.
Vote 'no', she keeps her base but will probably lose the election anyway. Poll show that 50% of Likely Voters in ND support Kavanaugh.
True. Red State Democrats should really learn a lesson from Manchin (who will probably end up switching parties anyway).
246
Goran_K
2018 Oct 4, 5:01pm
Goran_K
2018 Oct 4, 5:01pm
curious2 says
What else do Democrats offer besides more Government programs mired by corruption and inefficiency?
I don't see huge numbers of people rallying around creating new government departments.
What else do Democrats offer besides more Government programs mired by corruption and inefficiency?
« First « Previous Comments 207 - 246 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
Yesterday former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris told radio host on New York's AM 970 that he believes the "blue wave" that Democrats are expecting to give them back the Senate and House will not materialize, and polling has backed him up.
Last week, CNN's mid term poll showed that Democrats only had a 3 point advantage, well within the margin of error, and considering that CNN is known for "oversampling" Democrats in its own polls, this is troubling for the DNC.
Additionally, a recent poll from Reuters (left leaning) has shown that Millennials are leaving the Democrat party in droves. Democrat membership in the 18-34 demographic (the bread and butter of the DNC) dropped 9% over the past 2 years, most of them becoming "independents".
"I think that [Democrats] see fool’s gold in these scandals," Morris said. "They’re putting everything behind the Stormy Daniels scandal and Michael Cohen … and the country doesn’t give a damn."
That's when Morris dropped his prediction.
"There is no blue wave coming," Morris exclaimed. "There is a red wave. And what makes it red is the blood of the Democratic Party."
Here's my official take. I believe the GOP will LOSE seats in the house but will not give it up to the DNC. I believe the GOP will GAIN seats in the senate, keeping their majority. This will mean that Trump will have both houses of congress for his entire term.